On 11/7/12 9:17 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > As a followup to Magnus's report that pg_upgrade was slow for many > tables, I did some more testing with many tables, e.g.: > > CREATE TABLE test991 (x SERIAL); > > I ran it for 0, 1k, 2k, ... 16k tables, and got these results: > > tables pg_dump restore pg_upgrade(increase) > 0 0.30 0.24 11.73(-) > 1000 6.46 6.55 28.79(2.45x) > 2000 29.82 20.96 69.75(2.42x) > 4000 95.70 115.88 289.82(4.16x) > 8000 405.38 505.93 1168.60(4.03x) > 16000 1702.23 2197.56 5022.82(4.30x)
I can reproduce these numbers, more or less. (Additionally, it ran out of shared memory with the default setting when dumping the 8000 tables.) But this issue seems to be entirely the fault of sequences being present. When I replace the serial column with an int, everything finishes within seconds and scales seemingly linearly. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
